IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30/07/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.(PD) NO.1451 OF 2003
AND
C.M.P.NO.10270 OF 2003
Mrs. Eswari ..... Petitioner
-Vs-
Co-owners
rep. by Mr.Natchimuthu ..... Respondent
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of C.P.
C. against the fair order and executable order passed by the learned
Additional District Munsif, Karur in I.A.No.721 of 2002 in O.S.No.788 of 2002
dated 3.1.2003.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
for Mr.V.Perumal
^For Respondent : ---
:ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. This
Court is of the considered view that no notice to the respondent’s side is
necessary and in order to avoid the avoidable delay, the Court can give
disposal to the C.R.P. with the available materials before this Court.
2. Admittedly, two suits are pending on the file of the learned
Additional District Munsif, Karur, one is O.S.No.788 of 2002, wherein the
revision petitioner as plaintiff has sought for declaration and permanent
injunction, while the respondent herein has filed a suit in O. S.No.600 of
2002, wherein he sought for permanent injunction. It is admitted by the
revision petitioner that the suit properties involved in both the suits are
same; that the revision petitioner is disputing with regard to a particular
part of the property and that both the suits are pending. It could be seen
from the order of the court below that originally an application was filed in
O.S.No.600 of 2002 for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Commissioner was appointed and he inspected the suit property
in the presence of both the parties and he filed his report. The petitioner
herein has also filed her objections thereon. At this stage, the instant
application has been been filed by the revision petitioner herein for the
appointment of another Advocate Commissioner to inspect the very same
property. The lower court has rightly pointed out that if another Advocate
Commissioner is appointed, it would be nothing but causing confusion and it
would not help to the Court to decide the issue in question.
3. Under the stated circumstances, this Court is unable to see any
merit in the civil revision petition. This Court is of the view that a
direction would be suffice to the lower court to give an opportunity to the
petitioner herein to cross examine the Advocate Commissiner if examined in
that regard at the time of joint trial of both the suits. Accordingly, the
lower court is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to
cross examine the Commissioner if examined as witness and the lower court
during trial if it feels necessary, can reissue the commission warrant to the
same Commissioner to inspect the suit property and file additional report.
With the above observation, this civil revision petition is closed. No costs.
Consequently, connected CMP is also closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Karur